Gujarat High Court
Patel Sangeetaben Revabhai D/O. ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6087/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 6087 of 2018
==========================================================
PATEL SANGEETABEN REVABHAI D/O. REVABHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned
Advocate representing the private respondent, and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The case at hand presents a rather peculiar factual matrix
wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in proceedings
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
declined to grant maintenance to the petitioner, Sangeetaben, on the
premise that she had obtained a divorce and, by virtue of the
customary divorce deed placed on record at Annexure-C, had
relinquished her claim to seek maintenance from her husband.
Regrettably, the revisional Court, in a somewhat insensitive
approach, has affirmed the said order. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner
is before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:--
"(A) to admit and allow this petition;
(B) to quash and set aside the order dated 18.04.2013 passed
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6087/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
Misc. Application No.247 of 2012 so also order dated
03.10.2017 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-
hoc) Mehsana, in Criminal Revision Application No.33 of
2013, qua denial of the maintenance to the petitioner wife, at
the same time be pleased to remand back the case to the
concerned court for determining quantum of maintenance for
the petitioner wife;."
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-
C, being a deed of customary divorce, unequivocally indicates that
the petitioner has relinquished her right to claim maintenance, and
therefore she stands estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. I am wholly unconvinced by such submission. The right to
claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code is a statutory
right, conceived in larger public interest to prevent vagrancy and
destitution, and the same cannot be curtailed, foreclosed or scuttled
by any contractual arrangement or a customary divorce deed. More
so, the deed in question, purporting to be a customary divorce
executed within the Patel community, is of no avail, inasmuch as
such customary divorce is not judicially recognized in the said
community.
5. Be that as it may, the provision itself defines "wife" to include
a divorcee, and the statutory scheme under Section 125 entitles a
divorced wife to claim maintenance until she contracts a second
marriage. Ergo, any agreement or deed, which seeks to waive or
abridge such statutory entitlement, is void and unenforceable in law
to that extent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/6087/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 247 of 2012 by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, declining
maintenance to the petitioner Sangeetaben, as well as the order of
confirmation rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in
Criminal Revision Application No. 33 of 2013, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
7. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 247 of
2012 stands restored to its original file, to be proceeded with afresh
in accordance with law, and the learned Trial Court is directed to
decide the same on merits within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
